BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

---

Unfortunately, replacement theology is just another in a long line of anti-biblical Catholic stances.

Of course there are many. Friar Tuck hits on just one.

---

You oughta fact-check the things you say so you don't look like an ass. Replacement theology is not an official Catholic stance.

---

Of course, the good friar wouldn't describe his beliefs as such. But the fact is that is exactly what he's spouting there. And it's in line with Catholic doctrine.

Or do you disagree that his views are not in line with the Catholic Church?

---

Replacement theology is not a Catholic belief, Google is your friend. The Church teaches a form of Fulfillment Theology.

However, Father Ripperger, like me and many others, hold a more traditional view. Nostra Aetate is Magisterium, not Dogma. It's possible to dissent while being in good standing with the Church.

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

---

Unfortunately, replacement theology is just another in a long line of anti-biblical Catholic stances.

Of course there are many. Friar Tuck hits on just one.

---

You oughta fact-check the things you say so you don't look like an ass. Replacement theology is not an official Catholic stance.

---

Of course, the good friar wouldn't describe his beliefs as such. But the fact is that is exactly what he's spouting there. And it's in line with Catholic doctrine.

Or do you disagree that his views are not in line with the Catholic Church?

---

Replacement theology is not a Catholic belief, Google is your friend. The Church teaches a form of Fulfillment Theology.

However, Father Ripperger, like me and many others, hold a more traditional view. Nostra Aetate is Magisterium, not Dogma. It's possible to dissent while being in good standing with the Church.

---

You're missing my point. Replacement Theology, and what the Catholic Church describes as "Fulfillment Theology," are essentially the same thing. Both argue that God has transferred "chosen" status to Christians, and that the covenant with Abraham's descendants has ended.

It's more a semantics argument and repackaging of Replacement Theology than anything. It sounds better as "Fulfillment" than "Replacement." The good friar's beliefs are completely in line with Catholic doctrine.

Of course, both are equally unbiblical.

And no surprise you've fallen into the trap. Those who dislike Jews in general generally do.

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

---

Unfortunately, replacement theology is just another in a long line of anti-biblical Catholic stances.

Of course there are many. Friar Tuck hits on just one.

---

You oughta fact-check the things you say so you don't look like an ass. Replacement theology is not an official Catholic stance.

---

Of course, the good friar wouldn't describe his beliefs as such. But the fact is that is exactly what he's spouting there. And it's in line with Catholic doctrine.

Or do you disagree that his views are not in line with the Catholic Church?

---

Replacement theology is not a Catholic belief, Google is your friend. The Church teaches a form of Fulfillment Theology.

However, Father Ripperger, like me and many others, hold a more traditional view. Nostra Aetate is Magisterium, not Dogma. It's possible to dissent while being in good standing with the Church.

---

You're missing my point. Replacement Theology, and what the Catholic Church describes as "Fulfillment Theology," are essentially the same thing. Both argue that God has transferred "chosen" status to Christians, and that the covenant with Abraham's descendants has ended.

It's more a semantics argument and repackaging of Replacement Theology than anything. It sounds better as "Fulfillment" than "Replacement." The good friar's beliefs are completely in line with Catholic doctrine.

Of course, both are equally unbiblical.

And no surprise you've fallen into the trap. Those who dislike Jews in general generally do.

---

According to the great song from church camp, father Abraham had many sons and I am one of thjem and so are you. so lets just praise the lord.

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

---

Unfortunately, replacement theology is just another in a long line of anti-biblical Catholic stances.

Of course there are many. Friar Tuck hits on just one.

---

You oughta fact-check the things you say so you don't look like an ass. Replacement theology is not an official Catholic stance.

---

Of course, the good friar wouldn't describe his beliefs as such. But the fact is that is exactly what he's spouting there. And it's in line with Catholic doctrine.

Or do you disagree that his views are not in line with the Catholic Church?

---

Replacement theology is not a Catholic belief, Google is your friend. The Church teaches a form of Fulfillment Theology.

However, Father Ripperger, like me and many others, hold a more traditional view. Nostra Aetate is Magisterium, not Dogma. It's possible to dissent while being in good standing with the Church.

---

You're missing my point. Replacement Theology, and what the Catholic Church describes as "Fulfillment Theology," are essentially the same thing. Both argue that God has transferred "chosen" status to Christians, and that the covenant with Abraham's descendants has ended.

It's more a semantics argument and repackaging of Replacement Theology than anything. It sounds better as "Fulfillment" than "Replacement." The good friar's beliefs are completely in line with Catholic doctrine.

Of course, both are equally unbiblical.

And no surprise you've fallen into the trap. Those who dislike Jews in general generally do.

---

If Mothra is right and God is just a giant ****** with no over-arching plan and just randomly, spontaneously changing his mind on a whim and starting new covenants... maybe Mohammad and Joseph Smith were prophets afterall!

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

---

Unfortunately, replacement theology is just another in a long line of anti-biblical Catholic stances.

Of course there are many. Friar Tuck hits on just one.

---

You oughta fact-check the things you say so you don't look like an ass. Replacement theology is not an official Catholic stance.

---

Of course, the good friar wouldn't describe his beliefs as such. But the fact is that is exactly what he's spouting there. And it's in line with Catholic doctrine.

Or do you disagree that his views are not in line with the Catholic Church?

---

Replacement theology is not a Catholic belief, Google is your friend. The Church teaches a form of Fulfillment Theology.

However, Father Ripperger, like me and many others, hold a more traditional view. Nostra Aetate is Magisterium, not Dogma. It's possible to dissent while being in good standing with the Church.

---

You're missing my point. Replacement Theology, and what the Catholic Church describes as "Fulfillment Theology," are essentially the same thing. Both argue that God has transferred "chosen" status to Christians, and that the covenant with Abraham's descendants has ended.

It's more a semantics argument and repackaging of Replacement Theology than anything. It sounds better as "Fulfillment" than "Replacement." The good friar's beliefs are completely in line with Catholic doctrine.

Of course, both are equally unbiblical.

And no surprise you've fallen into the trap. Those who dislike Jews in general generally do.

---

According to the great song from church camp, father Abraham had many sons and I am one of thjem and so are you. so lets just praise the lord.

---

Indeed, Christians are the spiritual sons of Abraham. They are grafted into the tree.

You're still missing the point of the bad theology you subscribe to.

---

There is neither jew nor gentile. If you are still practicing judaism you're an apostate like father Chad says. Talmudic judaism is totatl apostasy. He is correct in what he says and Christ is the spiritual Israel.and those who follow him are the Gods chosen.

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

---

Unfortunately, replacement theology is just another in a long line of anti-biblical Catholic stances.

Of course there are many. Friar Tuck hits on just one.

---

You oughta fact-check the things you say so you don't look like an ass. Replacement theology is not an official Catholic stance.

---

Of course, the good friar wouldn't describe his beliefs as such. But the fact is that is exactly what he's spouting there. And it's in line with Catholic doctrine.

Or do you disagree that his views are not in line with the Catholic Church?

---

Replacement theology is not a Catholic belief, Google is your friend. The Church teaches a form of Fulfillment Theology.

However, Father Ripperger, like me and many others, hold a more traditional view. Nostra Aetate is Magisterium, not Dogma. It's possible to dissent while being in good standing with the Church.

---

You're missing my point. Replacement Theology, and what the Catholic Church describes as "Fulfillment Theology," are essentially the same thing. Both argue that God has transferred "chosen" status to Christians, and that the covenant with Abraham's descendants has ended.

It's more a semantics argument and repackaging of Replacement Theology than anything. It sounds better as "Fulfillment" than "Replacement." The good friar's beliefs are completely in line with Catholic doctrine.

Of course, both are equally unbiblical.

And no surprise you've fallen into the trap. Those who dislike Jews in general generally do.

---

If Mothra is right and God is just a giant ****** with no over-arching plan and just randomly, spontaneously changing his mind on a whim and starting new covenants... maybe Mohammad and Joseph Smith were prophets afterall!

---

Weird take. God had a plan from the beginning, and that plan is being fulfilled. And it always involved the redemption of the people group you hate. Anyone who has read scripture knows that.

I know that irks you.

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

---

Unfortunately, replacement theology is just another in a long line of anti-biblical Catholic stances.

Of course there are many. Friar Tuck hits on just one.

---

You oughta fact-check the things you say so you don't look like an ass. Replacement theology is not an official Catholic stance.

---

Of course, the good friar wouldn't describe his beliefs as such. But the fact is that is exactly what he's spouting there. And it's in line with Catholic doctrine.

Or do you disagree that his views are not in line with the Catholic Church?

---

Replacement theology is not a Catholic belief, Google is your friend. The Church teaches a form of Fulfillment Theology.

However, Father Ripperger, like me and many others, hold a more traditional view. Nostra Aetate is Magisterium, not Dogma. It's possible to dissent while being in good standing with the Church.

---

You're missing my point. Replacement Theology, and what the Catholic Church describes as "Fulfillment Theology," are essentially the same thing. Both argue that God has transferred "chosen" status to Christians, and that the covenant with Abraham's descendants has ended.

It's more a semantics argument and repackaging of Replacement Theology than anything. It sounds better as "Fulfillment" than "Replacement." The good friar's beliefs are completely in line with Catholic doctrine.

Of course, both are equally unbiblical.

And no surprise you've fallen into the trap. Those who dislike Jews in general generally do.

---

If Mothra is right and God is just a giant ****** with no over-arching plan and just randomly, spontaneously changing his mind on a whim and starting new covenants... maybe Mohammad and Joseph Smith were prophets afterall!

---

Weird take. God had a plan from the beginning, and that plan is being fulfilled. And it always involved the redemption of the people group you hate. Anyone who has read scripture knows that.

I know that irks you.

---

How do you know Muhammad and Joseph Smith arent prophets if God is running multiple covenants at the same time?

Bottom line, there is either one convenant or Christianity is fake and Jesus was a charlatan.

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

---

Unfortunately, replacement theology is just another in a long line of anti-biblical Catholic stances.

Of course there are many. Friar Tuck hits on just one.

---

You oughta fact-check the things you say so you don't look like an ass. Replacement theology is not an official Catholic stance.

---

Of course, the good friar wouldn't describe his beliefs as such. But the fact is that is exactly what he's spouting there. And it's in line with Catholic doctrine.

Or do you disagree that his views are not in line with the Catholic Church?

---

Replacement theology is not a Catholic belief, Google is your friend. The Church teaches a form of Fulfillment Theology.

However, Father Ripperger, like me and many others, hold a more traditional view. Nostra Aetate is Magisterium, not Dogma. It's possible to dissent while being in good standing with the Church.

---

You're missing my point. Replacement Theology, and what the Catholic Church describes as "Fulfillment Theology," are essentially the same thing. Both argue that God has transferred "chosen" status to Christians, and that the covenant with Abraham's descendants has ended.

It's more a semantics argument and repackaging of Replacement Theology than anything. It sounds better as "Fulfillment" than "Replacement." The good friar's beliefs are completely in line with Catholic doctrine.

Of course, both are equally unbiblical.

And no surprise you've fallen into the trap. Those who dislike Jews in general generally do.

---

If Mothra is right and God is just a giant ****** with no over-arching plan and just randomly, spontaneously changing his mind on a whim and starting new covenants... maybe Mohammad and Joseph Smith were prophets afterall!

---

Weird take. God had a plan from the beginning, and that plan is being fulfilled. And it always involved the redemption of the people group you hate. Anyone who has read scripture knows that.

I know that irks you.

---

How do you know Muhammad and Joseph Smith arent prophets if God is running multiple covenants at the same time?

Bottom line, there is either one convenant or Christianity is fake and Jesus was a charlatan.

---

Easy. Because God doesn't mention Muhammad or Joseph Smith in His Holy Scriptures, which are the compass by which we judge all ideas.

So you set up a false dilemma.

Guess what scripture does say in Romans 9-11?

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

---

Unfortunately, replacement theology is just another in a long line of anti-biblical Catholic stances.

Of course there are many. Friar Tuck hits on just one.

---

You oughta fact-check the things you say so you don't look like an ass. Replacement theology is not an official Catholic stance.

---

Of course, the good friar wouldn't describe his beliefs as such. But the fact is that is exactly what he's spouting there. And it's in line with Catholic doctrine.

Or do you disagree that his views are not in line with the Catholic Church?

---

Replacement theology is not a Catholic belief, Google is your friend. The Church teaches a form of Fulfillment Theology.

However, Father Ripperger, like me and many others, hold a more traditional view. Nostra Aetate is Magisterium, not Dogma. It's possible to dissent while being in good standing with the Church.

---

You're missing my point. Replacement Theology, and what the Catholic Church describes as "Fulfillment Theology," are essentially the same thing. Both argue that God has transferred "chosen" status to Christians, and that the covenant with Abraham's descendants has ended.

It's more a semantics argument and repackaging of Replacement Theology than anything. It sounds better as "Fulfillment" than "Replacement." The good friar's beliefs are completely in line with Catholic doctrine.

Of course, both are equally unbiblical.

And no surprise you've fallen into the trap. Those who dislike Jews in general generally do.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

---

Unfortunately, replacement theology is just another in a long line of anti-biblical Catholic stances.

Of course there are many. Friar Tuck hits on just one.

---

You oughta fact-check the things you say so you don't look like an ass. Replacement theology is not an official Catholic stance.

---

Of course, the good friar wouldn't describe his beliefs as such. But the fact is that is exactly what he's spouting there. And it's in line with Catholic doctrine.

Or do you disagree that his views are not in line with the Catholic Church?

---

Replacement theology is not a Catholic belief, Google is your friend. The Church teaches a form of Fulfillment Theology.

However, Father Ripperger, like me and many others, hold a more traditional view. Nostra Aetate is Magisterium, not Dogma. It's possible to dissent while being in good standing with the Church.

---

I disagree in part. While it may not define infallible dogma, Nostra Aetate is binding Church teaching requiring religious submission of mind and will. Among its teachings are the condemnation of antisemitism and rejection of hard supersessionism (of course dispensationalism is also erroneous, but that's another issue).

---